User talk:Una Smith

This user may have left Wikipedia. Una Smith has not edited Wikipedia since January 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anethole, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Una, would you mind sending me an email? I want to talk with you. I am sorry this is in a funky place, I can't figure out the cleanest way to get ahold of you.

Jared@purebulk.com 72.174.0.146 (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this have something to do with the article Anethole? --Una Smith (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article self-microemulsifying drug delivery system, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lac de Monteynard Avignonet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, Since you like dabs maybe you have time to sort through this mess at East Friesian, which was a redirect to the sheep, as was the redirect at the top of the article about the region, although it was listed as a redirect to the horse. I only know about wild horses, and possibly at least one other horse breed should be at this dab. A picture of East Fresia is slated to be the POD soon, and I wanted to see the image in an article when I stumbled upon this. If you don't have time, someone else will dabble, I'm sure. --KP Botany (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the mess you want fixed? On the dab page, or in the links to it? Also, does this mean you are over whatever it was that led you to do that AN/I thing? Being your target got me, uh, further targeted. Blood in the water attracts sharks, KWIM? --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never hold grudges, because it's too hard to keep track of them when there's so much chum in the water.

What I would like you to do is check the dab I created and see if there is anything urgently in need of fixing, not necessarily the links to and from it and its articles, as that is mere tedium, but if there are additional horses, like the Fresian that should properly be on that page. In other words, an editorial decision about the usefulness of what should be on the dab.

I usually don't ask other editors to clean up tedious messes, just important messes that may keep readers away from finding the articles they would like to read. As Wikipedia has a number of good horse articles on modern breeds, in spite of the difficulties in that area, making sure that interested readers can properly navigate to those articles is, in my opinion, an important task. Once I created the redirect, I realized there is probably a Fresian, and, yup, there is. Should it be on that page also? Or is it a rare breed and unlikely the mistake is to be made? I know about horse evolution and taxonomy, but not about modern breeds, so I can't really do anything about necessary additions. --KP Botany (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You never hold grudges, but do you ever apologize? I fixed up East Friesian for you, and some related articles while I was at it. --Una Smith (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, but usually forgetting what the whole deal is about precludes a genuine apology. I would have to research your involvement, my involvement, who said what when, etc., etc.

I do know I disagree with how you handle disambiguating certain very common terms, however, I also know you're likely to create an inclusive dab that will be useful to readers attempting to hit the right page for more obscure topics. This is what I take from my interaction with you, the last point, and, since we're both here to create an encyclopedia I think a compliment is better than an apology. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks. It looks great. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. I had "deja vu all over again", and realized I'd previously made East Frisian. --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had meant to check East Frisian, as that is the spelling I'm more familiar with, and I didn't! (I'm compiling and debugging thousands of lines of code.) --KP Botany (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debugging after compiling, ew. I am a fan of Donald Knuth. --Una Smith (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit history I see I never edited (or at least never saved an edit) to East Frisian; I worked on Frisian. Nevermind. --Una Smith (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: File:Bridge-suspension-simple.svg File:Bridge-suspension-nonsimple.svg. I guess these two are mostly useful when shown together. Tizio 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are lovely; thank you so much! --Una Smith (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered some material in the Rodeo article about Mexican charreada and Chilean rodeo in order to set the article on the road to a worldwide perspective. Should be an interesting article when other nations are investigated. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. You might let Cgoodwin know as well. --Una Smith (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice expansion. I do think that the original lead image was better, perhaps the diagram could replace the next image (lattice sides), which does not have sufficient resolution to show the details.

Thanks for the notice, Leonard G. (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I changed the infobox image to a photo that shows the key design elements of this type of bridge, and removed the blurry image. --Una Smith (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Input requested ==

Hi, your are listed in WikiProject Bridges and I wondered if you might want to weigh in on a requested move? There is a discussion here Talk:Suspension_bridge_types#Requested_move which results from a previous move. The discussion has major consequences on the content of the main article on suspension bridges? The root question: Is a suspended deck bridge the proper name for a typical suspension bridge? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That question is a red herring, unrelated to the requested move.¢Spender1983 considers them to be related. I grant that the article now at Suspended deck bridge should be moved to Suspended-deck suspension bridge. The requested move however concerns moving Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge. --Una Smith (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things were fine for years, just the way they were. The problems and confusion induced are not mine to solve. I suggest that things be reverted to the initial state. - Leonard G. (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about notifying me on my talk page before you post on the article talk page? And how about asking that I consider an apology first rather than filing an ANI? Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I asked you twice to stop doing it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "subject of requested move" have to do with where the redirect goes? Are you projecting that the move of suspension bridge types to suspension bridge will take place? Not likely. As I see it 99.99% of the people typing in "suspension bridge" into the search window and clicking "Go" are looking for the bridges like the Golden Gate bridge, and not trying to find out what other types of suspension bridges there are. I would strongly suggest that the redirect go to whatever that article is called at the moment, until it is moved back to suspension bridge, where it has been for all but 5 hours of its existence, until recently. You will note above that the editor who created the article suspension bridge types, and moved suspension bridge for 5 hours, in 2005, and moved it back, agrees that that is where it should be. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of links to Suspension bridge right now that are being read by people discussing the (now 3) requested moves. If you change the redirect in the midst of those discussions, it confuses people. Okay? --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, how do you know what readers want when they push the "Go" button? That's a straight question, not sarcasm. Do you have data about how many readers use hatnotes or other links to go from one page to another, to recover from a link that took them somewhere they didn't want to go? I am one reader who was not looking for an article about suspended-deck suspension bridges when I followed a link to Suspension bridge, several weeks ago. I knew that most of what I was reading did not apply to most types of suspension bridge, but many readers would not know it. Yes, suspended-deck suspension bridges probably are by far the most notable kind of suspension bridge, but does that justify the one type occupying the name of the larger class? --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. See clarinet, as opposed to soprano clarinet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 14:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that silence about my need for some sort of evidence. I'll probably chime in in a day or so. Personally I really need a see a good case to move a dab page.Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. ---kilbad (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request, as pointed by the recent deaths in India Swine Flu is reported to be highly communicable within humans. Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shagnik (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to structure the article as per MOS:MED. Also, I added a bunch of review articles under "Further reading" incase someone wants to read through them and add some facts. ---kilbad (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work, Kilbad. --Una Smith (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of free, full text review articles to the "Further reading" section of the Influenza treatment article, from which people can add additional information to Wikipedia. Perhaps someone else could apply MoS guidelines to the article to improve its overall structure? What exactly should the article structure/sections look like? ---kilbad (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer there : User_talk:Yug#Swine_influenza. Thanks for your support. Yug (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats confirm my feeling. Wikipedia have a big naming trouble, wikipedia have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu.

• Swine flu - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza
• 2009 swine flu outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak

This lead me to 2 conclusions :

1. People aren't getting the information they are searching for. A solution is NEED.
2. I was right, people are changing the swine flu article, into a copy of 2009 swine flu outbreak.

I sleeped 8 hours, that continue in the same way. That's an article naming trouble. Yug (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. You reverted your blanking of NAMES under the influenza. This paragraph is about the NAMES used to describe this strain. Removing cited material and replacing it with your own personal claim (no matter if it is true) without documentation is not acceptable per wiki guidelines. I will undo your edit once again. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, but don't blank other's work because you disagree with it. If you wish to add the statement that you did, I see no problem with it, but don't delete other cited information.BFritzen (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BFritzen. I don't know what you saw, but here is the version resulting from my edit. What exactly did I "blank"? --Una Smith (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article history you blanked all of this and entered a simple claim that the strain was not from swine.

"

The new strain is commonly called swine flu, but some parties object to the name and it has also been referred to as Mexican flu,^[1] North American influenza,^[2] and 2009 H1N1 flu.^[1] On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization began to call it influenza A(H1N1) ^[3]. The outbreak is believed to have started in March 2009.^[4] Local outbreaks of an influenza-like illness were first detected in three areas of Mexico, but the virus responsible was not clinically identified as a new strain until April 24, 2009. Following the identification, its presence was soon confirmed in various Mexican states and in Mexico City. Within days, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other Northern Hemisphere countries.

" BFritzen (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You are looking at the diff, which parses my changes strangely. Please look at the versions before and after my edit, and you will see this before:

The new strain is commonly called swine flu, but some parties object to the name and it has also been referred to as Mexican flu,[53]

and this after:

Although commonly called swine flu, this new strain has not been found in swine.[53] It is also known as Mexican flu,[54]

You can also see this in the diff, if you look carefully. I blanked nothing. --Una Smith (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history page. For some reason your edit eliminates the above all together. The part blanked is in red. It could be because of a glitch due to a simultaneous edit. Re enter what you were trying to include, by all means I have no objection to that, but at the end of the edit, a large chunk was missing. It could have been inadvertent on your part, happens even to me. :-D BFritzen (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AH, my apologies! It was just that I had recently staved off an edit war re: Names and when I saw that large part of Red Text "apparently" missing, I assumed the worst. Thank you for correcting me and please accept my apology. BFritzen (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we have that sorted out now. --Una Smith (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have a medical background but please remember our WP:OR rules still apply even if you are Margaret Chan, Angus Nicoll or Joseph Bresee. Your addition to the 2009 swine influenza article stating it was not technically a strain of swine influenze was wrong on many levels. Not just because it was pure OR, but because it contradicted a later part of the article which was sourced and stated some researchers do consider it a strain of swine influenze. If you can find sources that say it is not swine influenza you are welcome to add them to the article so we can better discuss the controversy over the name, but we do need sources not your say so and it probably shouldn't go into the lead unless we can somehow find a way to sum up the controversy Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you understand that I have a medical background? Anyway, I think you mean to call it unsourced, not OR. Many people do "call" it swine influenza; unfortunately, that does not make it so. --Una Smith (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You need to explain why you delete a tag and you did not in article Swine influenza. This is a current event and you can not delete a current event tag. I understand that there is another 2009 article for Swine flue, however, this article by itself qualifies for current event. So please do not delete the tag. --Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a good explanation. This article, by itself is qualified for a current event. If you do not change the tag, I will take it to ANI. Thank you--Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Una Smith. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Swine influenza. Thank you.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, and very much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Do you think Wikipedia will get a new FA or two out of all the work on these articles? --Una Smith (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never thought of that, a nice silver lining inside this looming thunderhead! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 2009 swine flu outbreak, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Influenza viruses are not killed by freezing, as a quick search reveals. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Flu viruses 'can live for decades' on ice, NZ Herald, 30 November 2006. is a useful free-access article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not nearly as well as when chilled. For frozen storage, influenza samples get special treatment. Influenza surveillance instructions specify storing the sample in a fridge, not freezer. --Una Smith (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied with some RS's on Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Influenza-like illness, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Locoweedand Swainsonine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Finnish heritage disease, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [1].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Szalonna (bacon), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Szalonna. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Surform, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- MaenK.A._Talk 07:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Una Smith. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there guidelines for page format for use with {{plant common name}}? Thanks. ENeville (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Plants uses Tree peony as an example. I have created a stub documentation for the template on Template:Plant common name/doc. --Una Smith (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. :-) ENeville (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the Talk page about including identifiers with entries. ENeville (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks. --Una Smith (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself a sporadic disambiguator, and I probably won't be finishing the AFP disambiguation job. Please feel free to finish this. Thanks, Lisatwo (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have left you a note. It's pretty much as you describe, a way to reduce the workload on new page patrol and to let experienced article creators get on with their work. I noticed when I was checking new pages that you fit the criteria. Happy editing! Acroterion _(talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, it seems to me that Latreillia should be the crab, with a hatnote pointing to the fly.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A while back, you tagged Bryophyta with {{disambig-plants}}, which is inappropriate for this article when you note that the text explicitly says the article is about groups with the same common name. Additionally, the tag seem to have confused at least one bot, who did not know the page was a disambguation page as a result of the specialized template. I'm not sure how to address that second issue, but given that the text of the template isn't appropriate for the Bryophyta page, I have restored the original generic disambiguation tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. --Una Smith (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Child-directed_speech: Please do not change order of users discussion. Your last intervention was after my intervention --Caceo (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it was indented accordingly. --Una Smith (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles have few editors, and some of them are not very fun to deal with. You should have been around back when Deathmolor was trying to get his Linker program included in the timeline of file sharing - like [this diff], where Kbrose was reverting the mutually-agreed-upon deletion of off-topic content (pages of Deathmolor going on about how I was ruining the article, and me being stupid enough to attempt explanations of why this was unwelcome at the talk page) - this was after Deathmolor was blocked+unblocked/wristslapped for legal threats. Good times. Anyway :) It's nice to see some attempt at keeping things civil. I appreciate your efforts. Thank you.    M   06:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was having some trouble understanding the reasoning that this message is a reply to. Are you able to see how both articles being related constitutes a reason for using a hat link over a dab page, as an exception to WP:D? You need not agree or disagree with the reason, but I was hoping another pair of eyes could pick out something that both David and I were missing.    M   00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how David Levy sees it that way; that argument basically rests on some notion of etymology, and it is an argument that comes up often in proposals to move article pages. Anyway, the other editor is entitled to an opinion, and I know WP:RM regulars would not be in the least moved by that argument. I think you would get more mileage out of debating the question itself, rather than arguing with another editor (do you see the difference?). Seek to persuade others reading the debate of your position, and do no let your arguments deteriorate to the level of "is to" / "is not". David Levy did deny the article is the primary topic, which is strong support for your position. The reason I did not push more is that I think the article needs an extensive rewrite and then a move. Its topic and scope are not clearly defined. I added text saying peer-to-peer is in contrast to client-server and master-slave, and someone else deleted it as irrelevant. This is absurd. In some computing environments, peer-to-peer and master-slave are alternative architectures. In supercomputing, for example. Either this is an article that covers it all, in which case it has to include any computing environment the reader may have in mind, or the article has some other, narrower scope. I am thinking this article is an example of Blind men and an elephant. --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<facepalm> An elegant example of testing significance against the null hypothesis. I wish I had thought of that. Hesperian 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry, I didn't have time to check the discussion before it was closed by harej. I've left a comment at Talk:Cloud atlas. By the way, I've reverted your insertion of links to your sandbox from article namespace here. Articles shouldn't have links to user pages or subpages. The links can of course be added when the article is moved to mainspace, though. Jafeluv (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed here as well. Jafeluv (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so - however, for future reference you can move pages yourself; anyone has that option. Just go to the "move this page" link and follow the instructions there. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Una Smith (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved User:Una Smith/sandbox to Cloud atlas, and the old Cloud atlas to Cloud atlas (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you think of my recent edits to peer-to-peer? (I'd like to avoid having it all reverted again, so I'm trying to get some more feedback partway through.)    M   21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. The article has changed a lot since 2004! --Edcolins (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

Hello,

Thanks for splitting-out kidney cancer from renal cell carcinoma. It was something that was on my todo list. Above said, I think there has to be some more re-organization.

You write on your user page that you often edit articles about cancer. On this topic, I'd like to point-out that tumour and cancer are not the same thing; cancers are malignant, i.e. can metastasize. Tumours may be malignant. Both tumours and cancer are clonal, i.e. derived from one (mutated) cell.

Things get messy when doctors aren't sure whether something is malignant, e.g. a pheochromocytoma is sometimes malignant and sometimes it isn't. In any case, I think it is worth trying to keep things separate; things that are clearly malignant, e.g. renal cell carcinoma, are cancers. Things that are benign tumours, e.g. angiomyolipoma, cystic nephroma, renal oncocytoma are not cancer and IMHO shouldn't be in the cancer article.

173.33.192.50 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article Cancer is watched by several editors, myself not included; have you brought up your concerns about that article on its talk page? I recommend posting on WP:MED a heads-up / invitation to any discussion. Also, for many tumors there is no bright line between benign and malignant, hence no bright line between tumor and cancer. Wikipedia has gradually evolved articles about tumors by location, and by histology. In creating Kidney cancer, I was furthering that trend. I have very little opinion re whether the by-location articles generally should have "tumor" or "cancer" in their page name. --Una Smith (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed that you've been changing links, however at the moment you're adding inaccuracies and piping through redirects. For example, Durham City is a dab page and the City of Durham is a local government area different to Durham. Please stop until the debate at talk:Durham is resolved. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the dab page are deliberate, and appropriate. If the text says "Durham City" then it needs to be disambiguated! --Una Smith (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they doesn't, they invariably mean the settlement rather than the local government district. Especially in the case of Bishop Auckland. Also, linking to Durham, England over Durham is a bit disruptive until the discussion is resolved. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that is not true, since there is a dab page at Durham City. --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to link to a redirect page? It's pointless. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not pointless. As "Durham, England" is a common form of reference to the place, it has a redirect Durham, England and editors should use it. Two adjacent links to different articles, one only remotely relevant, are hard on readers. --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless as it's quite likely to be removed after consensus emerges on the talk page as to what should be done. Also, your edits aren't restricted to merging to adjacent links, but include changing "Durham, England" to "Durham, England", introducing a needless redirect. What's the point in that? It's not commonly referred to as Durham, England, but Durham as Chzz demonstrated on talk:Durham. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why make this edit when South Shields, Durham, England would by your reasoning be better? Because there isn't a problem with adjacent links. It's a false argument being used to justify wholesale changes without consensus. Please desist. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the nicest possible way. You do not know what you are doing. Please stop. I consider your edits to articles such as Bishop Auckland vandalism. They linked to the correct article and you have moved them to a DAB page. I have personally spent a great deal of time ensuring that article references the correct articles. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pit-yacker, are you saying you are personally responsible for such hideous devices as "Durham City"? --Una Smith (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you address the point about linking to the wrong page? Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who originates from County Durham, at least within the county, Durham City is frequently used to distinguish Durham from the county. However, this usage doesn't really extend beyond the county as the difference in what is quite a rural county becomes less important at a national level. However, the point is really irrelevant as in this case because I had ensured that Bishop Auckland linked to the correct article. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to fix the other incoming links to Durham City. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought it might be best to wait until the present debate has finished. That way they only need doing once. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all yours. --Una Smith (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my point that you do not know enough about the subject matter to make these edits. For example, at Kepier Hospital, Gilesgate is an area of Durham city so it is quite correct to say Gilesgate, Durham. I consider your edits vandalism. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Chris Brown (English footballer). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're an involved party on Talk:Durham, Jeni. --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Brown (English footballer), you will be blocked from editing. Jeni ^(talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here are my edits to the article in question: [2] [3] [4]. --Una Smith (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the relevant discussion. If you continue you will be reported to AIV and/or ANI. Jeni ^(talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Tony Blair. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Jeni ^(talk) 01:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of your disruptive edits, I have started a thread at ANI Jeni ^(talk) 01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I read the thread at AN/I, and I reviewed your edit contributions and the discussion at Talk:Durham. At Wikipedia, we have a rule against edit-warring, which disrupts the encyclopedia and prevents us all from getting useful work done. While you haven't violated the three-revert rule on any one page, your edits related to Durham appear to me to have the net effect of edit-warring. It looks like there's no consensus that these links need to be changed, and although you are aware that other editors disagree with you that this change is the best thing for the encyclopedia, you seem to be trying to force your desired version into the encyclopedia. That's a problem. As far as I can tell from reading the discussion at Talk:Durham, you are the only person who thinks that these edits should be made, which means that, at the moment, you're editing against consensus. That's a problem, too. It looks like you've been informed that your edits are a problem, and been asked to pause until the discussion is complete, but you've chosen to continue. The next step would be a short block, which will allow the conversation to continue to form a consensus on this question without the distraction of your edits. If you'd like me to help in this situation by blocking you, let me know by making another edit related to Durham which doesn't have clear consensus at Talk:Durham. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was also reviewing the situation at the same time as FisherQueen, and I have to agree with her 100%. Please do not make any more edits in the fashion that you are making without clear consensus on the Talk:Durham page. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to contradict our guidelines qhen you provide stylistic advice. A hyphen is not a dash, and the latter was specifically indicated in this case. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have to talk to you about that, just got too deep into this field. I will put up expanded Nordberg article in minutes. My motivation was your story, your ALT hook at DYK, and the fact that nobody is working on those article (well, my conscience is unsettled with a thought that you might have same thought on triple nom and I'm "stealing it from you"). Thus, if it Ok with, I am planning to convert your single nomination into a triple one, with me as a co-author. Comments? Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. --Una Smith (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated Anders Nordberg and Michal Smola and the DYK hook. If you have time and wish, it would be great if you could check for blunders as I am not a good writer and was rushing to finish ASAP. I have no idea why this DYK nomination is intended for September 11. Materialscientist (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hook involves a rescue, and September 11 is the date the World Trade Center towers fell. --Una Smith (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rescuing Smola, Nordberg and Johansson nominations at DYK, with new hooks. I will be away between 16 and 26 september, with uncertain internet access. Please take care of those noms, if problems. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Anders Nordberg is in queue 4 now. --Una Smith (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added some articles to Other to-dos. Those you added was quite well written with much texts (thanks for the contributions). But, I don't see the point to list articles that are already well written. I see the list is more for articles that needs to be improved; not that has already been improved. If it is more like a personal to-do list for you, like you know what is still missing, then you can keep it on your user page as your own to-do list. BTW. Could you add some headers also to the articles you have written. It makes reading easier. --Kslotte (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles were stubs when I put them on the to-do list. The first one I then expanded myself. The second and third someone else jumped in and expanded right after I listed them. --Una Smith (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thierry Gueorgiou, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is another one, but he doesn't have an article. You can't really disambiguate with an article that doesn't exist I don't think. -- BigDom 06:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other one, a redlink, has incoming links so it should be on the dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice this discussion at WT:DYK? It's regarding an edit made by you, and your input may be valuable in resolving the problem. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was not aware of that. --Una Smith (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anders Nordberg, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 06:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you've had a chance to Google it, but it's definitely dumped from this page. I'm not the best on working out what's copyrighted, what's not and whether or not it's violating copyright policies or laws, so would you mind checking out that site? All the best. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but not for a few days. --Una Smith (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No telling which came first. And the existence of a first copy elsewhere is not proof of copyright violation. It appears the contributor is at or works for the institution, so may well be able to grant the license Wikipedia requires. In any case, an overhaul of the Wikipedia article is in order. --Una Smith (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michal Smola, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have explained why, please accept my apology. I hope the link explained it. cygnis insignis 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martin Johansson (orienteer b. 1984), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 12:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Watching stats. --Una Smith (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I left you a question in the Cleveland move discussion. Cheers, Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what happened, but I missed this. --Una Smith (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Regarding the situation about Cantonese redirection, it is under heated debate. The current moves are extremely controversial, opposed by many editors. If you wish to find out the detailed, please read the discussion where you leave your comments. Thank you. A word of advice: leave the links alone for now. --WikiCantona (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cruciate ligament, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You nkow, I'd lost count of the [[WP:DLR]s I fixed for bird of paradise :: Birds of Paradise when I realised that it would be a darn sight simpler to rename the DAB to a redirect and a have the DAB hatbox of Birds of Paradise. Or would you rather spend you time doing lots of minor edits for something that is now fixed?--Alastair Rae (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome, I owe you an apology. I moved the DAB page without even noticing it had a talk page, never mind that there was any controversy. I was thus a bit annoyed when what I thought was a neat solution was being undone. Ho hum. WP tells us to "be bold" but I guess I blundered there. Sorry again. --Alastair Rae (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. It was easy to fix, so no big deal. For what it's worth, one reason you found so many links intending one article was that I had been picking out and fixing most links that intended other articles. --Una Smith (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_9#Template:Reins

Your template nominated for deletion. You may state your opinion. I am no expert in the area. Kasaalan (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else originally flagged bit and reins for a merge, and after some thought, I nominated ALL the tack templates, including my own, for deletion because they are all orphaned and WPEQ hasn't the time to sort out the issue. Mine went away quickly because I was the creator and it was my request (I moved it to a sandbox), but the others are yours and we really do need to clean out orphaned stuff for now. You can park yours into a sandbox too, if you want. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep templates in an archive somehow, preferably in article or project archive pages, it saves time and effort and deletion won't need hardcore debates. If that happens, some user may come later and improve template into shape. Kasaalan (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

''''PLEASE HELP I NEED INFO RE: if the prevention medicine prescribed for the swine flu (any of it) is harmful to pregnant women (5mos) or the fetus.''''''Debi

Hi not sure what I'm doing but i need some info pronto. My daughter has been exposed to the swine flu. She's 23 5mos pregnant and in a county jail, not getting the best of care, that's where she was exposed. I need to know if the preventative medicine they gave her is harmful to the fetus and or her. Not sure what they gave her have to ask her again, but she mentioned it started with an 'R' but not sure if it's Relenza or not. PLEASE HELP!!!!!! DEBI BROWN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debi Brown (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP I just wanted to know if the anti virals to prevent swine flu are harmful to pregnant women or the fetus, my daughter is 5 mos pregnant in a county jail and has been exposed to the swine flu. It has been 5 days and she has no symtoms as of yet. Please advise. Debi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debi Brown (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions properly requires knowing your daughter's medical history and exactly what she was given. So these are questions to ask your daughter's own physician. --Una Smith (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pulmonary hypoplasia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pulmonary hypoplasia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Alveolar capillary dysplasia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alveolar capillary dysplasia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved this page from Wallingford. Any chance you could clear up the incoming links so that I can move the dab page to Wallingford? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will help with that. --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The list of incoming links isn't updating to reflect your navbox changes. I'll wait a while to see if the problem goes away; if not, a bug report may be necessary. --Una Smith (talk)

Re Wallingford - I don't understand the relevance of your argument that incoming links to the various pages may have needed to be fixed - the fact remains that there were vastly more links to the Wallingford page that related to the town in Oxford - and those were correct links (whether they may have been incorrect at some stage seems of little consequence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.128.169 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that when an article (rather than a dab page) occupies an ambiguous base name, editors who fix incoming links usually fix only those that don't intend the article. Thus, over time correct links tend to be the majority of incoming links, although not necessarily the majority of incoming links made to the page. Do you see the difference, and why it matters? --Una Smith (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		for working to speed up navigation by dilligently fixing links pointed at diambiguation pages! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 16:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a 2006 deletion! I'll undelete it, but the only content is Pere Tàpies is a VIP in [[Catalonia]] {{catalonia-stub}} There you go tho. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with this edit you created a redlink. What evidence do you have for the existence of such a school in Wallingford? If your answer is "The Edward Woodward article", I'm afraid that I have expressed concerns there, see Talk:Edward Woodward#Elmwood School. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Wikipedia and found several articles apparently referring to it without linking, in addition to the incoming links. I did not search the web, until now. I expect the school no longer exists. Could this Elmwood School be the Elmwood School of Gardening, a horticultural college for women? Massively abusing Google, I obtained the snippets "Waterperry Horticultural School, near Oxford, Oxfordshire, was the most important as", "Originally, the Elmwood School of Gardening was established c.1902 at Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, by Miss Ruth Cornelius Wheeler, an early student at Lady Warwick Hostel", and "The Horticultural College at Swanley took women pupils from 1891, while the Lady Warwick Hostel at Reading, Berkshire, opened in the autumn of 1898." All from this source. Another source snippet "Waterperry Horticultural School for Women in Oxfordshire" puts the Waterperry school "near Oxford". Another approach would be to identify which editors added mentions of the school to Wikipedia and ask them for details. --Una Smith (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, this is a question about an entry on the dab page Elmwood School, not the dab page Wallingford. If it cannot be substantiated, delete it.

My main concern is with the article Edward Woodward. As you may be aware, he died today. I hardly think that he went to a horticultural college for women, given his working-class background. Don't really see how "Waterperry" fits in.

If you look at the page history for 12 November you'll see that just before your dab, I dabbed it and immediately reverted because I couldn't see how Wallingford, Oxfordshire fitted in with the rest of the paragraph, which all concerns schools, etc. in the Croydon/Sutton area - seventy miles from Wallingford, Oxfordshire I believe. The word Wallingford originally entered the article with this edit. Bit difficult to ask an IP editor what their source was. My intention was to find out a bit more by actually going to Wallingford and asking there - it's a 30-min bus ride from where I live in Didcot, and the local authority's offices are just over the river in Crowmarsh Gifford. Being unable to go on 13 Nov, I intended doing that this afternoon; but then he went and died this morning and it's all gone horribly wrong. All recently-deceased people attract edits like ghouls, often unsourced; there have been approx 100 edits since your dab. If you now google "Elmwood School Wallingford" pretty much everything non-American that turns up mentions Woodward, often word-identical to Wikipedia. One even has a ^{[dubious - discuss]} in the text. It looks like all the obit writers have been checking Wikipedia, and now we've possibly fed them duff info. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "Elmwood School at Wallingford" is misinformation, it is old misinformation dated over 2 years ago. Likely many of those websites copied Wikipedia long before either of us ever saw the article. And some content on the Wikipedia article may be a copy from one of them. Who knows? Is the location of one school this man attended as a child in any way important? --Una Smith (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly some of it was copied from WP yesterday, at 13:59 or later, since I only placed the {{dubious}} tag with this edit. To me, which schools he attended are unimportant, except for those directly influencing his later life, such as drama school. However, to others they may be important; and I would prefer to be accurate rather than misleading. The number of peole who have visited the page in the last 24 hours is more than the total number of views in the preceding six months: there were over 100000 views of it yesterday compared to an average of 322 per day for 1-15 November; and around 10000 per month prior to that.

That's what annoys me. With 300 hits per day, not many people will care. But with 100000, it

I don't know. Maybe I should just delete it as unsourced trivia. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blade grinder, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Chocolate liqueur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Honour of Wallingford at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honour of Wallingford, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chocolate liqueur, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Una,

my edit [5] on the Starfall (website) categories was not pointless... my life is too short to make pointless edits. I'd apreciate it if you put my edit back. Thanks Erich (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erich gasboy. Your edit added a sort key "Starfall" in place of the page name "Starfall (website)". Sort keys are not displayed (Wikipedia:Categorization#Display of category pages) so your edit had no effect and if it did have an effect it would be to put the article out of normal sort order for that category. But perhaps I am missing something. What was the point of your edit? --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a proposal, support it with sound arguments and references to policy, then let other editors discuss it instead of manipulating other editors into supporting you? I read the Bird of Paradise discussion and some others wiht you and dabs. You often have good suggestions for dabs, but your proposals are sometimes offensive and condescending to those you propose them to and to your idea itself. If it's a good idea presenting it in a neutral and factual way will allow for a discussion of the idea. Certainly this note will be poorly received. Admit it's hard to make it nice after being manipulated by you into asking a question that could lead you to post the answer you had prepared. With that in mind, I won't watchlist your page. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will any of these images work? Select the ones you like and post them here and I'll ask the owner for permission. There's usually a good change they'll re-license it. Mahanga^Talk 15:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I like this and this. --Una Smith (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent requests. The former doesn't appear to be active (last upload was in July). The latter is active, so I expect a reply in a day or two. Mahanga^Talk 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a photo I took of Oaxacan style Queso Flameado to your sandboxed article. Cheers! -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 07:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Poppyseed oil at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Poppy seed test (medical sign), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. I thought I might have time to round up a photo before it got to the main page. --Una Smith (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my promotion - we are hectic at DYK these days (bot doesn't work, etc); that nom had little chance for the lead anyway, but another poppy nomination clearly has. Sorry for my blunder with the count, I replied at T:TDYK. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Was a mostly facetious remark. --Una Smith (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Uma. I saw an edit about poppy seed crops being in conflict with opium poppy cultivation. When they bleed the poppy seed head to get opium does it actually kill or adversely affect seed development? A citation would be good. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)